fb6ins1z1 Reviews

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Nolan should just stay away from historical productions.

[6/10 · 1 August 2023]

This is the second film of Nolan's I have watched that features historical events and characters. For such a monumental slice of human history, this movie fails to emphasize the most important bits. It most certainly did not scratch the itch that I had developed when I found out it existed!

Nolan works wonders when he handles original ideas and Batman films. However, I have been disappointed too many times by him forcing originality into things that people are already familiar with.

Chris, sometimes we just want to see historical events visualized outside the documentary format. You don't need to try to prove how intelligent you are in every movie you make... You're butchering history just like Netflix does. Just, in a different way... I'm just disappointed that this wasted opportunity will now discourage others from making an Oppenheimer/Manhattan Project movie because it will have been already made. Or has it?

Conspiracy Theory (1997)

It means to be entertaining and succeeds.

[7/10 · 5 January 2023]

I had seen this movie in my early teen years and remembered it vaguely but fondly over the years. I watched it again now decades later, and it actually holds up better than I remembered. It clearly does not mean to be a serious story, but it has some great moments of wit and entertainment. While relatively spoofed, the action fares well against the more deliberate productions from not only the years this film was released but also modern counterparts. It truly offers more substance than is apparent, and I think any deficiencies around the plot can easily be forgiven considering all of the above.

American Gangster (2007)

In one word: Captivating.

[8/10 · 4 January 2023]

This movie stands on two main pillars in my opinion: Phenomenal casting choices and Ridley Scott. Denzel Washington's screen presence has always been captivating, and he does not disappoint here. I am deliberately choosing the same adjective to describe the movie overall and Denzel because they complement each other extremely well. Whether his performance is a true depiction of the real-life Frank Lucas, with all his mimics and mannerisms, or not, I can't think of another actor who could have done a better job playing this role. As for rest of the cast, they truly don't take a backseat to Washington's presence. All the main actors raise this movie up each time they are on screen. Crowe, Brolin, and Ruby Dee are particularly ideal choices for their roles.

Then there is Ridley Scott, who can become a master of his craft when he sets his mind to producing something serious. Sure, he doesn't consistently produce masterpieces, but a great percentage of the movies he directed are on my list of all-time favourites. The man knows how to tell a story well. Prime example of this is the concise character development in this movie. Here we have a plot that could have easily been spread over a 10-hour mini-series, and somehow within the first 20 minutes of American Gangster I was already profoundly invested in the characters and how their stories would turn out. I have seen too many films fail in this area before, which is why I tend to point out in my reviews how longer runtimes can help complex plots. While this film also takes many shortcuts to keep runtime under a reasonable 3 hours, it somehow manages to avoid many pitfalls that distract the audience from remaining invested in the characters. When the movie concluded, I was satisfied yet left wanting more all the same. To me, this is brilliant film-making, and I applaud the entire crew.

The only detractor in American Gangster is the relatively high number of deviations from the real-life story. All deviations are quite minor and do not affect the overall plot, but I didn't stumble upon any reasonable explanations why they were preferred over the original. Granted, I don't know the real story, but based on what's available on the internet from interviews with the real Richie Roberts and real Frank Lucas, here is one example: Detective Trupo did not kill himself as is shown in the movie. Obviously that scene is more dramatic than whatever happened to Trupo in real life, but in my opinion, it is unnecessary.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Tries to be satirical but fails to be engaging.

[5/10 · 2 January 2023]

In 2008, I was 21 years old. Even at that age, I doubt I would have found Tropic Thunder engaging. It lost me shortly after the opening sequence, and from that point until the end, the only memorable humour was the bit about "never going full retard."

I didn't dislike Tropic Thunder because of the typical negative reviews I've seen here. I love offensive jokes. I am a big fan of comedy between the likes of George Carlin, and say, Jimmy Carr.

I appreciate this movie's attempt at satire, but it doesn't do it right... I have seen MUCH better humour in Top Gear UK - a show about cars - than I did here. Having said that, I'm not even British, and I'm not American, either.

Overall, there is only one thing Tropic Thunder does right, and that is the mockery of war movies. Yet even in doing so, it is not funny. It just made me think "yeah, that's so true" without even a smirk for the most part. Since the plot is built around the concept of comedy, but the movie fails to be funny, it also stops being engaging and becomes boring very fast.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Epic but underrated because even the director's cut isn't long enough.

[8/10 · 1 January 2023]

I wondered why this movie was so underrated on IMDB, so I set out to read nearly 50 of the reviews that gave this movie a 5-star rating or lower. One of the common themes in these reviews seemed to be that the plot progressed too quickly or illogically, leading to plot holes or what some reviewers thought was the quick succession of scenes just to arrive at the climax of the movie quickly enough. Many of these reviews were correct, albeit partially, but they steered too far in the wrong direction and ignored the many merits of this epic production.

I suspect many of the bad reviews stem from the shorter version of this movie. The Crusades were a monumental era in our history, and covering such a pivotal chunk of this era with enough character development, reasoning and lead-up to the climax would have taken at least 5-6 hours. I would have loved for them to make 2 or 3 movies like the Lord of the Rings franchise, but here we are...

Moving on with my point: The Director's Cut edition is what everyone should watch before leaving reviews here. Admittedly, even the DC feels like 2 different movies. Before the intermission, the pace is perfect. While character development can only be done so well in a couple hours, I was always satisfied with why Balian was doing what he was doing - from his desire for a simple life, to the murder he committed and all the way to the defense of Jerusalem. Similarly, Godfrey is mentioned to have no heir very early in the movie, and the dots begin to connect themselves. Just because screen time allotted to some development and dialogue is limited, I was never left with the "why" unanswered. Once again, the pace of the first half was great. It uses concise dialogue, leaves the viewer enough time to ponder and relate to the times and what the characters are experiencing. After the intermission, the pace changes noticeably, and not for the better. It's almost as if they felt the first half took too long and they had to make up for lost time. The plot is made to progress via the main points, and not much elaboration or time is allowed for the viewer to feel caught up and relate to the characters. This continues until all the prerequisites for the siege of Jerusalem are established. Then, things slow down to approximately the original pace of the movie.

Now, before the intermission, this movie holds some of the most reasonable, humble, intelligent writing I have ever seen come out of Hollywood. In fact, the part where the Hospitalier begins by saying "I put no stock in religion..." is one of my all-time favourite scenes. The writing sets the tone so well that you can be a believer or an atheist and this movie would find a way into your heart either way. The values here are universal, which is one reason I believe this movie is a timeless epic.

Once again, after the intermission, the writing also suffers, and we witness a temporary shift towards the cliché. Unfortunately, this includes the excessive use of the phrase "rise a knight" and Balian's motivational speech(es). I think the choice of Orlando Bloom was quite deliberate, and I can't imagine this movie starring anyone else at this point. It's not him; it's the writing... Having said all that, things get better again in the last quarter of the movie.

I want to close by mentioning that this movie does not appear to be historically accurate in several places. I am not a historian, so these remarks come strictly from information available on the internet. Balian's wife's death, or his relationship with Sybilla, or Sybilla's relationship with Guy may all be inaccurate. While I don't appreciate this about any movie, I particularly don't appreciate it when the history of the characters is so monumental to the sequence of events. Yet I remind myself that this is not a documentary, and whatever reason they had to deviate from absolute historical accuracy, I hope it was well-considered.

Despite the relatively few flaws I mentioned, most of which stem solely from the fact that even the Director's Cut is too short, I think Kingdom of Heaven is the ultimate film about this particular era. Ridley Scott sure knows how to make epics. Despite there being many medieval-themed movies, not many are universally relatable or manage to convey a strong message across centuries as does this one.

Argo (2012)

Blatantly overrated and takes too many creative liberties...

[5/10 · 1 January 2023]

The body of this text will only focus on the first part of the title - the overrated part. Yes, the hostage rescue operation has been declassified, and I have read up on what I could find on the internet. Yes, it sounds like Argo diverts credit from the Canadians to the CIA. It also deviates too much for my taste from the actual historical events and the real stories of the people involved including that of Mendez. However, this is a movie, and it is made primarily for entertainment, even though it is unfortunate that producers don't shy away from going too far with their historical deviations... Therefore, in the category of historical accuracy, I am prepared to give Argo some slack despite the choices it makes that are entirely counter-productive to quality. I will, however, focus on why Argo fails to live up to the hype.

The Iran hostage crisis is a significant milestone in the modern history of the Middle East, and I am deeply disappointed to see Argo fail to deliver any substance on the subject matter. This film could have been epic in the hands of the right people. Unfortunately, in its current state it deserves neither the awards nor a majority of the positive reviews it received. I am especially shocked it won Best Motion Picture of the Year over the likes of Django Unchained and Lincoln, both of which were nominated alongside Argo.

First of all, two hours is not long enough for a plot of this magnitude. I will never understand why they always try to stay close to the magic 2-hour mark... If the plot, and in this case history(!), is being compromised for other factors, then the product lacks the quality the subject matter deserves. I just suggest people stop making historical events into production films if they will not do the history justice. In this regard, Argo doesn't devote enough screen time to tell the story in an adequate manner of how this blowback of a crisis came about. I am not here to suggest right from wrong in terms of foreign policy or internal affairs. As the viewer, I just want to see the complete story because only when both sides of the story are told do I walk away having extracted a lesson from the product. Now, the pace of this movie is already quick and leaves many holes where I would have liked to see more substance. Despite this pace, it barely manages to cover the main points to a conclusion. This is why I wish they had 3 hours of runtime or longer, provided they would have used that time productively... There is so much lacking in so many essential areas such as character development, the political build-up to the crisis, a convincing account of the Iranians' motivations for the attack on the embassy, and more... This is what I mean in saying that Argo could have been an epic film. Instead we have a lot of wasted potential.

Finally, the escape sequence from the Canadian ambassador's house all the way to the aircraft being airborne is filled to the brim with cliché close-call sequences. While I will give Argo a millimeter more slack here because I don't want to discount the entertainment value of this, I will criticize the sheer lack of imagination of everyone involved on how to increase the suspense in a story. They had all the ingredients handed to them on a silver platter by actual historical events to have the audience at the edge of their seats for 2 hours, and they chose to do it only in the last 20 minutes and in the most implausible manner.

Long story short (...is what this movie should have been called), Argo does not do justice to the history by which it was inspired. It fails to deliver any substance due to possibly lack of runtime and/or deliberate choices. Yet probably the worst legacy of Argo is the fact that no one else will attempt to make another film on this topic for decades now because it has already been made...

The Grey (2011)

Wasted potential for what could have been the ultimate winter survival tale.

[5/10 · 29 December 2022]

I am not a wildlife expert, but here is what I know about wolves from experience and study: The pack attacks the prey from behind while a single wolf approaches and distracts from the front. Every time a wolf in this movie approached one of the characters face to face, I waited for the surprise attack from behind. This is a wolf pack's signature maneouvre, which makes me question whether or not any experts were consulted in the making of this film... Now, an average oil worker doesn't have to know this about wolves even though they are employed up north, but I am pushed to expect for at least the main character to know it since he is clearly portrayed to have studied the subject. Yet we see in multiple scenes where everyone in the group stands facing the same direction, but we never hear a caution to watch the flank. I was growing more anxious by the second during those scenes!

Wild animals are not conniving creatures; they don't simply approach a group of multiple humans and try to pick them off one by one. I also have strong doubts about whether wolves would approach such a large and unfamiliar object as a crashed plane, especially if the wolves aren't even hungry and they're just attacking people to send a message. That is all quite ridiculous... I'm sure they would be protective of their territory but not like this. Needless to say, the behaviour of the wolves, on which so much of the movie's plot is based, felt unrealistic and unimaginative. I suspect the writers/producers just needed a reason for the survivors to abandon the crash site in order for the plot to progress as desired, and they came up with quickest reasons involving the wolves...

I won't even mention how poorly the concept of hypothermia was handled and how implausible it felt to watch the cliff and rope sequence...

The setting of this movie is filled to the brim with potential survival problems that can be handled in thrilling and logical ways. Why they chose to focus so much on the wolves is beyond me, but I think it was their downfall. Well, that and a few other choices... Otherwise, the scenery and the overall tone of the movie are great. You can almost feel the cold in your bones even though very little is done on-screen to convey that feeling to the viewer. The cast and dialogue were realistic. It's just a shame the potential is wasted by the weak plot and lack of reason.

Taken (I) (2008)

Refreshing plot, grounded action, and Epstein not killing himself.

[8/10 · 28 December 2022]

Allow me to start with something simple: One of the best things about this film is the part where the old friend in French intelligence confronts the protagonist over his recklessness in killing people and destroying a building (which was actually just a trailer) in his country. Despite this friend's motives, which are revealed later, this is exactly the kind of grounded logic I look for in the progression of a movie's action. Yes, I know it's all for entertainment, but immersion plays a very subtle and key role in the experience. One cannot simply walk into someone else's Mordor (country) guns-blazing, destroying cars and buildings, blowing up embassies and causing chaos without any accountability. It is the movie-makers' choice to include scenes - or not - where the character is held accountable or where the actions are justified to ensure we're not just watching mindless chases and destruction. If they choose not to include it, then it is my choice to rate the movie accordingly. In the case of Taken, I am satisfied in this regard.

Now, accountability isn't the only thing Taken has in the pro column. For one, it is refreshing to see a plot that doesn't revolve around the extremely-overused "villain trying to build a nuclear weapon" category. In fact, this is probably one of the most relatable plots in the genre. Not only does it have a man's rescue of his daughter in its focus, but it also features a trafficking "business" as well as the government officials and the super-rich that subscribe to it. In the light of Epstein not killing himself, I know very few plots that could be more in tune with the hard realities of the secret dark rooms where this type of thing may be happening.

Finally, the action and investigation were intelligently executed. For the most part, they steered away from any mindless tendencies, and the sequences were not too simplistic or boring and not at all confusing. That is a delicate balance and difficult to get right. It was quite satisfying to watch the main character so professionally execute his personal mission!

Tenet (2020)

A challenging masterpiece.

[9/10 · 25 December 2022]

They say imagination - not knowledge - is the true sign of intelligence. Well, Christopher Nolan must be quite the genius. The premise on which the plot of this movie is based is something many people don't even know about in its theoretic form. Yet Nolan dared to write it into a story, imagined and visualized, and present it in a fairly digestible manner despite the inherent risk of goofs and continuity errors in such a production. All of that requires imagination far beyond the average person possesses.

Tenet is certainly not meant to be enjoyed by everybody. First of all, in order to make the most of this experience, the viewer needs to have at least the simplest understanding of entropy and the non-linearity of space and time. While Tenet presents to us in the opening minutes the phenomena and how they apply to the plot, it may all seem like complete fiction if the viewer has no prior knowledge of the fact that "reverse entropy" is actually possible due to nothing in the math that explains our physical universe suggesting otherwise.

Tenet has a familiar feel, akin to Memento and Inception, both of which are also directed and written by Nolan. However, in terms of concessions made for allowing the plot to be more accessible to the average viewer, Tenet may well represent the epitome of Nolan's approach that I suspect aims to isolate the intelligent from the average. The viewer is never spoon-fed throughout this experience. The dialogue is concise and wastes no time in delivering critical information. There are practically no greetings; every conversation sprints straight to the point, and missing as little as 15 seconds of it can mean the subsequent chapter will make much less sense. What Nolan asks of the viewer for the best experience is not only some prior knowledge on the physics but also undivided attention.

Tenet is certainly challenging to watch, especially if you feel lost along the way. Could it have been made more accessible? Yes, I think so, but I don't know at what cost. The aforementioned concise dialogue and the cold, quiet professionalism of the main characters are essential ingredients in setting the tone here. Also, by the induced difficulty to follow the plot at times, the viewer is ushered into realizing how advanced our minds would have to be in order to understand the theory behind such complex physics, let alone develop technology to harness its potential. It deliberately intimidates us.

This movie is difficult to rate because it is unique - despite having similarities with Nolan's other products. I think the only detractor can be its lack of accessibility, but I also believe that is one of its key features. In terms of imagination and creativity, films like this are hard to come by. I understand why many reviewers underrated Tenet, but it is actually a masterpiece that was just waiting for the right mind(s) to come along and film it.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Maintains the quality from Rogue Nation.

[9/10 · 24 December 2022]

I watched Rogue Nation and Fallout back to back. The story is made to continue quite seamlessly between the two, and the viewer experiences in the latter the unsettling possibility of releasing a prisoner that the team worked so hard to capture in the former. I think that is key in justifying the first 2+ hours of this film. Once again, the action and espionage blend very well, albeit this one leans just a touch heavier on the action. I think the quality that I enjoyed in Rogue Nation is maintained here, and character decisions and action remain majorly justifiable. Perhaps the detractor, which almost downgraded my vote to an 8, is the later half of the helicopter sequence in the final chapter. The chase was thrilling, and knowing that Cruise flew the helo himself after hundreds of hours of training adds immense value to it. They just should have stayed a touch more grounded and plausible in the post-crash scenes. There are too many instances of subsequent slides and crashes that the human body would just not survive... Not even if you're Ethan Hunt! Yes, I am aware the character gets away with entirely too much, but the subtle suspension of disbelief will mask it until it no longer can, and my hypothetical line was crossed in this one.

Nevertheless, the movie is capable of gluing one's eyes to the screen, and the plot remains interesting all the way through. A significant part of that success is the fact that, in both of the movies mentioned here, the antagonist's motivation is actually reasonable, just not his methods. One of my pet peeves is when a story presents a villain whose cause makes no sense or is not explained well. Thankfully, Rogue Nation and Fallout do not fall into that pitfall.

Overall, well done! Fallout and Rogue Nation take their place among my all-time favourite action movies, which makes me look forward to the upcoming Dead Reckoning sequels which are made by the same director and writers.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

They stuck the landing!

[9/10 · 23 December 2022]

I am not easily impressed... Just look at any of my other reviews. That is exactly why I am so glad to say this movie finally delivered on many of the fronts I typically expect.

The combination of action and tradecraft is so well-balanced that the viewer is left wanting more at every switch from one to the other. The timings in the use of humour are near-perfect. The ending is immensely satisfying and leaves just enough to the imagination for ending the series here or the possibility of another sequel. The plot is deep, with far-reaching consequences. In fact, that is what gave this review its title! Too many times in other movies have I seen the build-up of a deep and global plot with organizations such as The Syndicate in this movie, and just as many times they failed to conclude the plot in a meaningful, justifiable manner. Rogue Nation certainly sticks the landing in that category, and that is in addition to its plausible yet thrilling action, chase, and fight sequences. The tradecraft and espionage (which I don't think of as interchangeable terms) are also some of the best I have seen in any film. In both the action and espionage, effective tactics are used with as little collateral as possible, and where there is collateral, it is justifiable! They handle the each chapter very well by keeping the viewer in the dark and saving for a big-reveal moment later, but I have also seen that executed poorly too many times in the past, so kudos to Rogue Nation for all of it! It leaves little to be desired in all categories I can think of that are applicable to the spy-thriller genre. Needless to say, I am impressed!

Moving on to the next movie with the bar set high.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Entertaining but a downgrade from the 3rd movie.

[6/10 · 23 December 2022]

I won't say too much about this one...

When the supposedly 190-IQ Hendricks decided to jump down the multilevel garage shaft vice simply throwing the briefcase down there, I ran out of my last bit of remaining patience for this movie.

There were some good moments of espionage and suspense as well as thrilling action. However, none of that was an improvement over the previous episode. Contrarily, they were largely inferior to both the 2nd and 3rd films.

I was surprised they didn't "milk" the Burj Khalifa climb further. It could have provided more thrill, but it was over a bit too quickly in the second half.

The plot was weak and did not give off the impression much thought had gone into it. I am sad to say this one is a disappointment. On to the next!

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Criminally underrated considering the other options in the genre...

[8/10 · 22 December 2022]

I feel as though my criteria for rating movies may differ from others in some key areas. This one, for example, is terribly underrated and not for the right reasons. So what do I look for in a movie while rating it? In one word: Justifiability.

Did someone just blow up a building? Why? Was there a more effective or less destructive alternative?

Did someone go in guns blazing when they're on a stealthy mission? Why?

Did someone choose to trust a person they just met? Why? What do they have to lose/gain?

Many questions such as these have to be justifiable, and this becomes all the more important in a spy movie.

So... In 2022 terms, John Woo and Tom Cruise may be considered the ultimate action duo, considering in particular the latter's accolades in the genre in the 22 years since this movie was released (and even before). Yet the real gem here comes from John Woo, who just three years prior had brought us one of the best pure action movies of all time in my opinion: Face/Off. He clearly brought his style to this franchise as well. From the intro music to the relative rawness of the action, it is obvious.

In stark contrast to many of the (pardon me for saying it) junk we see on screen these days, filled with CGI and mindless destruction without the slightest bit of substance, this movie stands out for me with its genuine stunts, plausible chase scenes, and fight sequences that actually included meaningful and effective moves. It is certainly a notable improvement over the first movie in terms of action, and yet it is rated lower... I understand the plot here is one of the main downgrades for a lot of the viewers. However, those who complain about the simplicity of this movie's plot dismiss the fact that the first movie's plot was extremely obvious, albeit slightly more complex. I mean, who didn't know immediately in the first movie that the Jim character and his wife Claire were the stand-out conspirators? Just me? Okay then...

Also, apparently John Woo's actual cut of this movie was over 3 hours. Perhaps people complaining about the lack of more espionage or suspense can take some comfort in the knowledge that the director probably included more of it but was told to keep the movie under 2 hours. That is the type of decision I genuinely dislike... A director's vision for the movie they are making should be entirely up to them, with the only condition being that the director has proven themselves to manage this successfully! With John Woo's portfolio, I think he should have been given this freedom. Needless to say, the reduced length supposedly caused some plot holes as well, but personally I didn't notice this. I also didn't see many glaring problems in terms of justifiability. The plot and the action were mostly reasonable.

Long story short, this movie is grossly underrated and should be sitting happily at around 7.3 in my opinion. I am rating it to help push it in that direction.

The Gray Man (2022)

Entertaining but not to be taken seriously.

[6/10 · 20 December 2022]

My humble opinion is that they didn't make this movie to be taken seriously. It contains many moments and remarks of irony that indicated to me this was just meant to be a young, fresh, ironic take on the spy thriller genre.

I appreciated the real gunshot sounds! The protagonist faction's characters were well-cast, and their dialogue was generally fitting with the producers' intent as above.

The cast for the antagonist side of the house was horrific, however, with the only exception being the Lloyd character. I thought in particular the Carmichael and Suzanne characters' acting and dialogue were cringe. Depending on what the producers intended with this movie, I think these characters would have been more believable if played by older actors.

The action, once again, made me think about the intent frequently. If I attempt to take the movie seriously, it fails because of its overuse of destruction and completely unimaginative and reckless action sequences - albeit with some humor - especially considering what they chose to name the movie. If I assume, however, that it tries to be ironic and funny and does not want to be taken seriously, it brings a few original moments to the table.

Overall, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept the fact that I was entertained and that this movie has no intention of being anything but a forgettable flick.

Spectre (I) (2015)

$245 mil budget to reach epic heights then fall flat on its face...

[6/10 · 10 December 2022]

For this review, I thought I would walk the readers through how I rate movies, and consequently how I rated this one. In my experience nearly two decades of choosing films based on their IMDB ratings and useful reviews, I am confident that the success mark for a movie "begins" at 7/10. Ratings beyond 7 indicate how well the movie succeeded. Beyond 8 is where we start seeing the truly impressive productions. Contrarily, the lower the rating goes below 7 the more your time will be wasted...

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, such as the occasional under- or overrated movie. Also, I find that 7 is the neutral zone for, say, the serious movies. Comedies tend to be happy sitting at around 6.5 while series and mini-series are only truly worth your time starting at around 7.5.

With that out of the way, I begin watching Spectre with a neutral 7 in my mind. I am open to being impressed as well as disappointed. From here on, I will use a format that begins with my dynamic rating, followed by the reason why. Each subsequent line shows my cumulative rating rounded to the nearest integer, with the first line representing the first deviation from 7, and the last one showing my final rating.

So we begin:

8 - One point added: In the opening action sequence, awesome building destruction scene with a moment or two of humour thrown in.

6 - Deserved 2-point drop: While the helicopter fight scene is thrilling, I have no reasonable explanation why Bond is continuing to attack the pilot after his actual target is killed. He could just force the pilot to land instead of trying to kick him out of the seat with what appears to be less than 500 feet of altitude and not much room to manoeuvre! NOT PLAUSIBLE. Even if he's trying to leave no witnesses, he can force the pilot to land somewhere isolated and kill him there. Pitiful attempt to lure action fans into thinking "wow!" after nearly crashing into the crowd whereas anyone with half a brain could see right through that.

7 - Raised back to neutral: By far the best intro song and aesthetics in this generation of Bond movies. You may think they are all similar, but no, this is most certainly the highest quality I have seen in this category yet. Titillating!

8 - Dialogue between Bond and Q in the underground garage is witty and somewhat superior to similar scenes in previous movies. Great conclusion with the DB10!

6 - Senseless eye-gouging at the meeting of secret antagonist group. I can think of no words to express my disgust at the sheer lack of effort to properly introduce a character. This, in addition to the unexciting and unimaginative car chase, cause a 2-point deduction. Despite the thrilling bit where the boss reveals that he knows Bond is in the crowd and suddenly looks right at him, this part of the movie is poorly constructed. I understand they tried to incorporate some humour into the car chase scene, including some classic 007 car moments, but it could have had all of that while adding some thrill... EDIT: Later in the movie, the eye-gouging vigilante spoke his first word ever, and it was a fun addition. Yet, I stand by my original remarks.

7 - Car chase ends with the cool parachute landing.

8 - The plot and dialogue from the car chase leading up to the plane chase in the mountains was above average. With the introduction of Madeleine, I confirm this is the best line of female co-stars in this generation of Bond films. Plane chase was somewhat plausible. At least, they had the decency to demonstrate Bond had lost control of the aircraft and therefore "had to" plough through one of the buildings - in stark contrast to the Casino Royale opening chase sequence and many others where he just destroys stuff because he can. One detractor was the camera at Mr. White's house, with its giant red light that 007 somehow missed - because we see later in the movie that he didn't know the camera was there. Perhaps he knew and didn't care... Hence the no reduction of points.

No change from 8 - I appreciate this film is making the particular point that 007 would know how to operate various types of aircraft. I imagine someone in that occupation would have to go through at least a VFR-level training.

Also no change from 8 - Even though the antagonist faction called Spectre is presented as a culmination of all 3 previous movies, it bears the darkest and most secretive tone we have seen yet. It actually paints an intimidating picture, and for the first time in the Daniel Craig series, they had me think the opponent is too powerful for 007 to penetrate. Previous movies never had the viewer doubt the outcome. Of course, this is speaking objectively, since we all know it's a Bond movie and the good guy will win... The only part I didn't appreciate is how they extracted so much information too simplistically from the ring Bond gave Q to examine. He downloaded all kinds of DNA and fingerprint information from the ring on his laptop in a matter of minutes. However, the most terrible part about it was that the ring had been in 007's pocket for days, not protected by a plastic sleeve, not handled with gloves because it's evidence, just in his pocket, from where he pulled it out with bare hands and handed it to Q's bare hands... Rant over. I chalk this one up to MI6's super technology and deduct no points because I enjoyed everything else in this paragraph.

9 - This number is a first in any of the Daniel Craig series of 007 movies! The scene where Madeleine reveals her association with weapons was great, and even before that, the build-up to the next evolution in the story and Madeleine's motivation to go with Bond was all reasonable and well-done. There was even a tape recording James found at L'Americaine labeled "Vesper Lynd Interrogation" which leaves the audience in a state of curiosity and with desire to watch further to see what happens. Meanwhile the battle of "global surveillance vs. The double 0 program" at home is unfolding, building anticipation because we suspect C is working against the protagonist even though we can't yet confirm. He may simply be an ambitious and inexperienced SoB who somehow landed the job and wants to change things up in the wake of the attacks at home in the previous movie. When this is all brought together to lead to 007's lone-wolf operation because whatever Q and M know, C also knows, it sets up perfectly for the final chapter!

8 - Back to humbler heights. There were some great moments in the introduction chapter between 007 and Blofeld. The dialogue and motives were still reasonable. However, the torture scene ended that with the revelation of an empty-minded personal side-quest vendetta - too vain for a character like Blofeld, and too coincidental that the very James Bond who has been after his organization for 3 movies once used to be his adopted brother. And then the torture and escape scenes... Once again, a character like Blofeld, who is so sophisticated that he sees and thinks of everything, allows Madeleine to go near James instead of strapping her down to her seat? Too theatrical, too dramatic, not plausible.

No change from 8 - We catch a glimpse of C's motives behind his alliance with Blofeld as M confronts him in his office. Having been in the military and watching the massive and square-shaped wheels of bureacracy trying to turn, I found his reasons relatable but not thorough. One would have to be diabolically power-hungry as well as motivated for taking part in an alliance of that nature. Thankfully, C's despicable personality fully cover that canvas.

Hard cold descent to 6 - The labyrinth of self-reflection that James strolls through in the destroyed MI6 building in his search for Blofeld, brought to us by the villain whose character is driven by his personal vendetta against James Bond rooted in his childhood memories of jealousy... One of these men is the leader of a global organization with resources and capabilities reaching up and down the farthest points of governments and the elite, while the other is a mere assassin, a pawn. The former fellow is personally on ground zero, initiating a timed explosive with his very own hands while giving his vengeful final speech to 007. An explosive in an already-destroyed building for crying outloud... Just to set up a fun little game for James... Oh and what a great coincidence there happened to be a giant net to catch people who fall through the hole that puctured through all the floors of the building right down the same spot. The holes on the swiss cheese lined up for something good for a change.

I have absolutely no sympathy for stories that aren't filtered through common sense and good ol' logic for the sheer purpose of fooling a crowd into momentarily being impressed. Unfortunately, only a small percentage think about the "why" and the "how" after the scene is over and the movie bows out. As you can see in the above paragraph, this movie reaches great heights in its potential but fails to stick the landing... My rating may be in the vicinity of 6.3, but I can only use whole numbers, so a 6 it is.

Skyfall (2012)

Once again, too simple, dumbed down & achieves little, given its budget.

[6/10 · 9 December 2022]

I have been watching one of these new generation of James Bond films approximately every 3-4 days, and I write a review immediately after. This helps keep previous episodes fresh enough in my memory to put the story of each film into context as well as best compare them to each other for relative scoring.

Once again, I walk away from a Bond movie not having been challenged or stimulated intellectually. The action is too simple and focuses on big explosions and destruction rather than sophisticated, tactical, thoroughly planned sequences... One of the low-point examples of this was when M and Kincade were evading from the Skyfall mansion towards the chapel, and despite their path being illuminated by the building that just turned into a huge fireball behind them, they use a flashlight (!!!) after just having escaped through underground tunnels to avoid detection! They may as well wave their arms and shout "We're here!" in order to advance the plot of the movie. Unacceptable, brainless behaviour that even a child would know not to do and not to believe if they were see it in a movie. Either my standards have become too high because of other franchises, or producers simply lack the ingenuity to raise the bar further than cheap tricks that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Overall, Skyfall barely passes as a Bond movie and fails to add any value to the franchise or help it leap forward in any way. It merely maintains the $200 million status quo. This is more than double the budget of The Bourne Identity for less than the latter's accomplishment. Personally, I find that unacceptable for what is supposed to be the epitome of spy thriller genre...

The Lost City of Z (2016)

Accurate, grounded, compromised

[8/10 · 8 December 2022]

I just watched this film for the 2nd time. I remember being fairly impressed by it the first time, and for some reason, that it had a higher rating on this site. Evidently, I think the current rating of 6.6 (December 2022) places this film severely below where it belongs. I wondered why that may be and went on to read some of the negative reviews. Dare I say most of them sounded spoiled and somewhat uninformed. Please believe me when I say that I do not easily leave a review criticizing others' opinions on such a subjective matter as movie preferences. However, I feel obliged to do so in this case because this film is truly underrated for what I feel are the wrong reasons.

The film does not set out to be another Indiana Jones copycat. Nowhere does it claim such a feat. It is an assumption on the part of some viewers, which leads to the expectation and consequently their disappointment. This movie is meant to include adventure yet remain grounded in history while also trying to compress some eight expeditions carried out under the leadership of Percy Fawcett into a representative three. This was done in order to fit everything into the length of a movie and was quite probably the producers' gravest mistake but not for the reason many think.

Because of the effort to keep the plot grounded and historically accurate - and believe me, this film is quite historically accurate - we end up with a final product that opens itself to criticism that is almost too harsh. First, this story should have been made into a mini-series. I'm sure the first 6 episodes would have written themselves! Instead of having to sit through nearly two and a half hours of what some viewers consider disappointing, they would have had more easily consumable, smaller one-hour chunks. In this format, people like me, who enjoy real and grounded stories such as this, would have also been happier with the added depth.

In close relation to the above paragraph, because of the amount of content and main plot points that had to be included to bring everything together, I suspect the producers made many compromises in their prioritization. The planning, execution, and the physical and emotional toll such expeditions would take on the characters are not portrayed nearly enough to force the audience to sympathize with the fact that this place is hot, humid, infested with many types of insects that the characters would have known nothing about and that these insects would suck their blood, squirt cyanide into their bodies, cause blood-blisters, transmit malaria and yellow fever, and more. Evidently, some of the explorers have died from these diseases. Also, mosquitoes are said to be the main reason that much of the Amazon is still uncharted territory. Yet, these astonishing facts are less-than-briefly touched upon in the movie. THIS is why it should have been a mini-series - for better development of the plot, characters, dangers, and consequently the higher immersion of the viewer.

I still feel comfortable rating this movie at 8 out of 10. There aren't many movies like this, and I don't mean Indiana Jones... I do hope that they remake it someday with more depth and less compromise.

Europa Report (2013)

Could have been epic. Instead, it's merely good enough.

[7/10 · 6 December 2022]

The premise of this film is deep in both philosophical and scientific content. The implications of finding intelligent life in our solar system are beyond what most of us imagine because we simply put little stock in that being possible. In that context, I appreciate what this film sets out do. It never steps out of the realm of hard possibilities, which makes it good sci-fi in my opinion and more valid than even the likes of Star Trek. THIS is the type of film I want to see - with depth of content and stimulation of the intellect.

...But, I could barely stand to watch this film at its current length. Now, I could watch hours upon hours of this sort of content if executed right. This is the type of film I'm after when it comes to planetary exploration. I do think the actors in this film were good, but unfortunately, neither they nor the overall production of this film were managed right. Compare this film to another one that has a lot of similar content - Interstellar - and you'll begin to understand what I mean. I am certainly not referring to the budget difference! I think Europa Report could have achieved much greater immersion with its available budget, by using merely stronger logic. This film began to lose my attention about when Sharlto, in his attempt to push Michael back into the airlock, pushed himself away from the spacecraft and drifted into the void. This is most certainly NOT how one of the best-trained individuals in our solar system would execute such a task. He would quickly find a way to anchor himself so he doesn't drift away. There is no deliberation, no solid logic, and some of that heavy breathing and panic certainly don't come across as plausible. An astronaut would be fully equipped (emotionally and intellectually) to handle such scenarios - and this is a simple one at that! It's only one example of many instances in this film that I firmly believe would never happen in real life. The progression of a movie's plot should feel a lot more natural and reasonable than this. This just felt forced...

A prime example of how a great idea can be poorly executed.

The Island (2005)

Has all the ingredients but perhaps not the right chef.

[7/10 · 6 December 2022]

This movie tries to handle a subject ripe with opportunity - the dilemma of the philosophical implications of the living, breathing clones of us. Are they human just like us, or are they humanoid products since they only exist because we made and paid for them? The film poses but also quickly deems irrelevant this very question because instead of having us ponder, it spoon-feeds us the fact that the clones have curiosity and emotions just like real humans. The viewer is practically robbed of the opportunity to ask the question within and decide for themselves - even if it may mean they have decided wrong and would find out why in later parts of the movie. There is some amazing philosophical content here that was severely overlooked for a much shallower experience. Despite being a good film, I think it could have been much more stimulating intellectually. I would have loved to see a Christopher Nolan product of this script. A wasted opportunity but entertaining enough nonetheless.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Not quite scratching the itch...

[6/10 · 4 December 2022]

These new series of Bond films starring Daniel Craig are almost great. They just happen to be made in an era where the bar of filmmaking in the spy-action genre have been set significantly higher than usual by other franchises. The movies deliver remarkably in areas where the James Bond character is known to be a symbol: His fashion sense, the cars he drives, the way he presents himself with confidence and class. However, I am starting to actively dislike most of the action scenes in these films. They are too chaotic and not intelligent enough. I haven't been seeing much of the 007 IQ that the franchise can thrive on. Instead, I've been seeing too much destruction and not enough efficiency in the execution of the action. This almost exclusively applies to the fight, chase, and otherwise fast-paced scenes, though. The subterfuge and tradecraft are still interesting enough.

Casino Royale (2006)

Too much cliché & not enough intelligence

[7/10 · 2 December 2022]

The title says it all... The action is too Hollywood. The dialogue and reasoning are too cliché. There are only a handful of moments where higher intelligence is asked of the viewers. This is all despite the renewed swiftness and efficiency of the action.

Example: The opening chase scene starts on the ground. Bond unjustifiably destroys some buildings when all that is standing between him and his target is a fence... They later end up in a gravity-defying fight sequence on a construction site. The chase culminates in a big explosion at an embassy, causing all kinds of commotion every step of the way. As I watched all of this, I couldn't help but think how much more efficiently and quietly the objectives could have been accomplished. It ran against everything represented by the word "assassin."

Action needs to be realistic and justifiable as much as it is swift and exciting. I know this is achievable because I have seen it in other movies. The original Jason Bourne trilogy is one example.

Casino Royale passes the test as the first in a new generation of James Bond movies. However, it fails to propel the franchise in a meaningful direction, away from the mindless cliché.

The Man from Earth (2007)

Probably the lowest budget masterpiece.

[9/10 · 26 November 2022]

This movie may just be the highest level of intellectual and philosophical stimulation I have ever experienced via any form of media. The writing is incredible. The characters balance each other in the group extremely well, and because of their credentials and challenges to John' story, the conversation steadily progresses towards credibility, all the while keeping you pondering the question of what if.

The layers of the conversation are brilliantly organized. I could have listened to another 3 hours of these people around that fireplace in that living room! I wanted to listen to every word John was saying. Not only is the character gripping but he also makes for a great storyteller in combination with the actor's steady and soothing voice and mimics.

Barring just a couple of moments that can easily be dismissed, this story is perfect, and the said moments only come in the form of reactions from the other characters to John's story.

After watching this movie probably for the 5th or 6th time, I still can't find any loopholes in his story. Every stage of his explanations is precise enough to pass the logic test, yet vague enough to appeal to the imagination. I stand in awe and thank the writer for this masterpiece...

As far as the production, it certainly could have been better. It is a low-budget effort, no doubt, and I certainly don't have to see the faces of the characters or the couch in the living room in high definition to enjoy this experience. It is a timeless classic as is! Only a small part of me wishes that HD was an option and better lighting was used...

Chernobyl (2019)

Monumental chapter in human history, great series.

[8/10 · 25 November 2022]

This mini-series consists of 5 episodes. Episodes 1 through 4 subject us to the very same uncertainty, curiosity, emotion, and struggle to find answers as I'm sure all the people were experiencing who were involved in or responding to this catastrophe. Personally, I appreciated this approach to the story-telling. It allowed me to witness the events and live through the experience and relate to the people before I was handed answers. I thought about all the questions and fears these people must have had in contrast to their sense of duty. A lot of this was portrayed in these episodes. Then, in episode 5, all the pieces fall into place. I found the use of the trial as a teaching platform for the viewers to be very effective. After all, the viewers and the jury/judge have that in common: We don't all know how a nuclear reactor works!

I particularly appreciated the part where Dyatlov is explained to not know how the reactor could explode, and for all he knew, the press of a button would have safely ended the test being conducted. Despite Dyatlov's irritating personality and terrible approach to subordinates, this explanation brought much-needed reason into the story, which was otherwise just about a lunatic who would rather die than not get promoted...

The events were well-researched despite the imaginable difficulty in getting to the bottom of some of the facts surrounding this disaster! The ending sequence including the fates of the real-life counterparts of the characters was a nice way to give the audience closure.

While I appreciated many things in this series, I think it could have been improved in the story-telling department. How? I'm actually not sure. I walked away from it never having been glued to my seat with anticipation of what comes next. This is a feeling I have had with other movies or series, so I rather easily notice the absence of it. In the case of Chernobyl, the real story is already gripping and very relatable, which is why I feel as though the material was there, but the execution fell somewhat short. I disagree with the average rating of 9.4 (at the time of writing) and rate it at 8 out of 10.

Tears of the Sun (2003)

Almost a recipe for greatness.

[7/10 · 23 November 2022]

This movie does a fantastic job at depicting the difficulty of decision-making as an officer in the field, on a mission that has many variables and unforeseeable dynamics. Especially the switch in LT's stance from focusing solely on the main objective to realizing he's making a mistake by leaving people to die is well portrayed!

Unfortunately, the meet-and-greet sequence was painful to watch with Kendricks's entitled, self-righteous and ignorant approach. They certainly added too much Hollywood to this character... I think a highly educated doctor that has been spending so much time in this geography would make much more educated and reasonable demands than acting like a spoiled (insert compliment here), especially considering these men are risking their lives to rescue her. While it is understandable that she doesn't want to leave all those people behind, I'm just pointing out the director/writers' approach to relay this to the audience. I can say that the Kendricks character was the weakest link in this movie.

A close second may be some scenes involving Capt Rhodes. Once again, too much Hollywood. Prime example is when he talks on the sat phone on the deck of the aircraft carrier with takeoffs and landings happening the entire time. He's the one calling the team! A sane person would find a quieter spot before making that call to the guys downrange who clearly can't scream to be heard on the phone!

Overall, the battle scenes were well-made. The reaction of the team members to getting hit were realistic and well-acted! The decision-making during the ongoing firefight in terms of what happens to the wounded/killed, whether to drag a buddy or not when you're under fire with no one covering, were portrayed well.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Historically speaking...

[5/10 · 22 November 2022]

...this movie may be accurate as far as the main events are depicted. However, it adds too much "Hollywood" and entry-level villainy into the storyline. The characters who wish Jesus to be punished always look conniving and smug, with the occasional pause of "oh no, is he telling the truth?!" This is all so obvious and assumes the average viewers intelligence to be low.

The only feasible character depiction was that of the Pontius Pilate, who is in fact shown to apply some logic to the situation.

Caiphas and his squad, on the other hand, are portrayed completely one-dimensionally and inhuman. The audience has no dots to connect, no backstory, no reason for these men to be as vengeful as they appear. This would not be such a big deal in a superhero movie's villain, perhaps, but even those movies paint a picture for their villains nowadays! Joker is human, just as is Two-Face! Bear with me as I try to drive my point across... I realize semi-historical events aren't the same as superhero movies, and that is all the more reason to show to the audience the "why!"

I can understand if the writers/director assumes the viewer will already have the backstory from their historical or religious studies. That is a choice they are free to make, just as it is my prerogative to rate this movie accordingly.

I have no problem with the violence in this movie since it is trying to make that its main point. From what I understand, the events are described to be even more brutal in the book than shown in this movie.

Kudos to the makers of the movie for not including too much "miracle" here and trying to stick to the mere historical events. Every viewer is free to walk away from this with their own perception of reality or faith.